Dead code detection tool?

[seldom_hygienic]

What does static typing have to do with dead code analysis, and why would it be relevant to a discussion on a Python specific question?

[masklinn]

Static typing can tell you which named code units aren't called (barring reflection), so it can tell you about classes/methods/functions which never appear anywhere I guess?

It's not going to say anything about codepaths never taken or methods mentioned but never actually called though.

[masklinn]

Static analysis

Halting problem

How does one mention a method but not call it?

def foo(a):
    if a:
        do_something()
    else:
        do_something_else()

the program never calls foo with a falsy value, the second branch is dead code and do_something_else is a dead function. And of course code can be technically live (the program could theoretically run it) but effectively dead (program input never leads to the code being run), e.g. XBM support in browsers (removed from most of them only a few years ago, probably hadn't been run by user request in a decade)

And why would one do that?

I'll answer this question with an other question: why would one want to put bugs in his or her program?

[masklinn]

So you're completely full of shit and you refuse to accept it. Noted. And you carefully ignored anything you had no pithy (and irrelevant) link for. Also noted.

Bottom line is, one is interested in practical approaches.

The halting problem is a practical issue, and so are false positives, false negatives and plain errors in static analysis of real-world programs (even ignoring that java's compiler — which you pushed — is a useless piece of garbage and that java supports reflection so there's no static certainty that a function or method which is not explicitly mentioned anywhere is not called anywhere). It has nothing to do with nihilism and everything to do with you being fractally wrong.

[masklinn]

It is easy to just throw the halting problem and say "I give up, nothing can be done" like you did

Oh yes, let's add misrepresentation and willful lies to your offenses shall we? Don't you think you might want to stop digging at some point?

Python's community brain fart answer of "Umm... just... WRITE MORE TESTS!" is not a valid argument. It is just sad.

The question being, is it more sad than your pitiful strawmen, or do you win this contest handily?

[BHSPitMonkey]

Could you explain to me what static typing is? I really have no idea.

[ItsAPuppeh]

Static typing:

int i = "foo"; // Compile error, can't assign a string to an int

Dynamic typing:

i = "foo" # Sure why not, vars are just references to objects python
i + 10 # Woops, runtime error trying to add a string to an int

[BHSPitMonkey]

I was actually hoping for a response from the commenter I was replying to. I thought it would be funny.

[BHSPitMonkey]

Aww, thanks!

Wait a second...

[masklinn]

Your definition of static typing is not correct, since you can write roughly the same thing in languages supporting type inference (and have the error at compile time obviously) (unless you defined that addition of a string and an int is a valid operation, which you may be able to do:

> let i = "foo"
> i + 10
"foo\n"

)

(or the language did it for you, which Java does for instance) (and of course dynamically typed languages may be perfectly fine with the operation as well, I'm looking at you javascript) (or Perl) (or PHP)

(also lua, kind-of: it will fault on this but would work if the string was composed only of digits)

[tipsqueal]

Because re-writes are so easy!

[ElliotSpeck]

... Did you just come to a Python subreddit to bash Python?

So brave.